Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Extend Benefit Of CM Advocates Welfare Scheme To Lawyers' Parents

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that a mandamus cannot be issued in the matter, while citing autonomy to contract between two parties, one of them being the Delhi Government.

The Court disposed of a plea moved by First Generation Lawyers Association, raising the issue of non inclusion of parents from the definition of family under the scheme.

Advocate Rudra Vikram Singh appearing for the Association submitted that in terms of clause 3 of the scheme, it is only the spouse and children of the eligible lawyers who can derive benefit of the Scheme, and not parents.

The scheme provides Rs. 10 lakh term life cover for advocates. It also provides medical insurance of Rs. 5 lakh to the family (advocate, spouse, two children up to 25 years) with cashless facility and coverage for pre-existing diseases. The Delhi Government covers the entire insurance premium. 

At the outset, the Court questioned Singh as to how a direction or mandamus as sought can be issued.

“This is an agreement between the government and the insurance company. There is a concept called autonomy to contract. Can a mandamus be issued directing the parties for having a provision in the contract between two individuals?,” the Court said.

“Whether two independent parties can be compelled to come to an agreement? In their discretion they entered into an agreement with the insurer to provide benefits of the scheme only to particular members of family. Can the court ask them to give benefits to parents and grandparents also?… That is for the insurer and the government to agree amongst themselves. We can't do. It is the autonomy to contract,” the Chief Justice remarked.

Delhi Government's counsel Sameer Vashisht told the Court that a mandamus as sought cannot be issued and that there were many hurdles in the matter as policies governing insurance benefits to parents are different

The Court told Singh that everything desirable cannot be subject matter of issuing a mandamus, which is issued only in case of failure of statutory duties.

Singh then agreed to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Delhi Government by way of a representation.

Granting him the said liberty, the Bench said that the appropriate government department should decide the representation as per law and that he can take all the pleas available to him there.

Title: First Generation Lawyers Association v. GNCTD & Ors